[blusterXY]

> just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there?

You are the only one being "prescriptive". If a class of people doesn't prefer (in aggregate) to do the kinds of work you want them to do, what right do you have to insist that it is better for them if they are forced to do this work? When did it become feminist to lecture women about the sort of work environment they should want?

You write as if you know what is best for society, yet where do you get this knowledge? It seems to me you do not even understand the points you are criticizing. The author of the Google piece was arguing that Google should change its work environment if it is serious about changing its workforce composition. He didn't tell women what they should want or how they should behave -- you are the only one doing that.

[52-6F-62]

The practices at places like Google have been designed to get women who want to be in the field into the field. They're far from perfect. Being a straight white male in a progressive country and working at a larger corporation that is currently undergoing many of the same situations and issues that this whole thing is about -- I will likely be passed over to share the opportunity with people who traditionally have not even been given a chance to prove their ability. That's fine by me. I just have to adjust my trajectory. It's a great wide world with all kinds of wonder outside of optimized career paths.

To add, I started out as an English major. While I did well in most things I applied myself to, I spent the largest part of my youth studying humanities, the human condition, social mores (first hand, from the 'dirt' to the most pious), and art. I'm now back working in amongst the tech world, and studying science again, and that's how you have me here, contributing.

I'd also like to add that my grandmother was an early systems analyst and programmer (FORTRAN, COBOL) and had to work so hard to even be recognized that she wore it as a badge of honour the rest of her life. I didn't understand at the time she told me. I do now.

My mother on the other hand, left her career to look after my siblings and I to the chagrin of her feminista detractors who thought it was a move of weakness. She rallied against that her whole life, and I supported her then, too.

This wavering from one extreme to the other is really harmful, emotionally, on a large scale. However, sometimes we have to dig a little deep to make sure our colleagues, friends, and others get to see a little light. Somebody who's never had to struggle will never understand that fully.

The immediate and harsh backlash for proposing that science is not a good sole means for rationalizing how to work through social issues is pretty striking to me. Anyway, I never claimed to -- and certainly don't -- know what's best, but I know a slippery slope when I see one.

[Chris2048]

> That's fine by me. I just have to adjust my trajectory.

And silence your mouth? There is a big difference between "I'm fine with this" and "Anyone who isn't should be fired".

[52-6F-62]

If I disagree with somebody, I can grab a megaphone and shout in their face, hit them, or try to start a civilized discussion.

If I'm not mistaken, he was fired for breaching the company's civil code of conduct. That's different than being fired for an idea. If I started onto my company's social intranet and posted essays citing references about why something should change, I'd probably face equal back lash because it's abrasive and not at all socially graceful. There's a lot of conjecture flying around in all directions...

Anyway that's a whole other discussion, because I primarily disagreed with his issue in the first place. His being fired was most likely twofold: he created a hostile atmosphere either knowingly, or because of social ignorance or naivete. This resulted in bad press, the whole lot, and corporations are [probably inarguably, on average] heartless institutions that seek to maintain an even keel -- bad press is bad for business. That's again a whole other discussion, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

[Chris2048]

> he was fired for breaching the company's civil code of conduct.

We've yet to hear details of what this really mean, and if this CoC is applied fairly. It sounds like the violation i a) based on a particular interpretation of the memo, or b) based on the subjective offense of other employees. This sounds like the "cultural fit" loophole of the left.

> That's different than being fired for an idea

Is it? Have all the ideas you want, just don't express them, even in forums than are specifically for that purpose? Why isn't the leaker being punished?

> If I started onto my company's social intranet

There are plenty liberal/left essays floating about the google intranets, this is not you average employer.

> he created a hostile atmosphere

Did he? The leaker, and those who misrepresented the content of the memo seem to be implicit in that.

> This resulted in bad press

So does any whistle-blower. But again - He did not leak the memo.

[pcnix]

> There are plenty liberal/left essays floating about the google intranets, this is not you average employer.

Yeah, but do they call a third of their coworkers incompetent?

It's not the fact that it's an opinion piece, it's that it's a very tactless way of approaching the situation. I'm not defending the leaker here, but once it did get leaked, there really was little the company could do to keep him a productive member of the workforce.

[Chris2048]

> do they call a third of their coworkers incompetent

the memo doesn't either - If you disagree please quote the part that does.

[blusterXY]

Why are you attacking James for "regressive thinking" if you respect women and their choices? No-one is denying women autonomy and choice. Quite the contrary: James seems to be the only voice at Google defending their freedom to have group preferences at all.

And if you want to empower women in your own corporate environment you should read his paper carefully, since part of his criticism is that Google's diversity programs are self-defeating: trying to induce women into engineering by lying about the nature of the work rather than changing the corporate culture so it attracts more women in the first place.

[mistermann]

We know where he doesn't get the knowledge.